Krikkiter
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,282
Scientology abandoned by Hubbard's granddaughter & Miscavige's father
- Thread starter Orphia Nay
- Start date
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Justinian, do you believe that leukemia is caused by an ''engram'' that contains the words ''it turns my blood to water.''? If you do then which qualifications do you have that enable you to make that judgement? I know it is bunk, and the only qualification that I need to make that judgement is a brain.
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,489
Well, if you rearrange the letters in "engrams" you get "Germans" and I think we all know who was German*, don't we?
*OK technichally he was Austrian, but I won't tell if you don't...
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Spooky! That really is a third eye opener.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Well, if Justinian doesn't fell up to answering, perhaps Fred will.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
I'm not holding my breath.
Justinian2
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,804
I don't put a face on the creator and/or the master of the universe (god).
It's plausible to me we're part of a simulation run over and over in order to exactly re-create a moment in the past. When we die, we get stored in memory and run again with a small tweak. While not Scientology dogma, this idea does not conflict with Scientology dogma as far as I know.
Last edited:
Rrose Selavy
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 3,395
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Where is the scientific evidence for this gem of ignorance?
"Leukaemia is evidently psychosomatic in origin and at least eight cases of leukaemia had been treated successfully by Dianetics after medicine had traditionally given up. The source of leukaemia has been reported to be an engram containing the phrase 'It turns my blood to water.'" - L. Ron Hubbard, "Journal of Scientology," Issue 15-G, 1953
"I think some of the humans are on to us, Mr. Hand."
"What shall we do, Mr. Book?"
"For now, there's no immediate danger. Continue with the program."
"But... what if one of them learns to Tune?"
"A human? Tune? I don't think we have to worry about that, Mr. Hand. They're still screwing around with e-meters!"
Respectfully,
Myriad
"What shall we do, Mr. Book?"
"For now, there's no immediate danger. Continue with the program."
"But... what if one of them learns to Tune?"
"A human? Tune? I don't think we have to worry about that, Mr. Hand. They're still screwing around with e-meters!"
Respectfully,
Myriad
I didn't intent to ask you to. I explained why I was asking you and asked the question several times in different ways, so I am disappointed that you choose to answer in this way.
We can imagine many stories that might be true. It could be that you are the only conscious being in the universe. Over the eons you were driven to despair by loneliness, so you caused the rest of us to be created. However, your powers and knowledge were meant that you couldn't really be one of the boys with your creation, so you caused your memory to be wiped and and replaced with the memories of an ordinary mortal. Like I say, we can all make up stories. By definition any one of them is almost certainly false, since it so easy to make up alternative ones. Perhaps the world is as it appears to be and when you die you stay dead.
None of this addresses the post of mine that you quoted though. Do you believe Christianity, Judaism and Islam can all be correct about the divinity, or lack there of of Jesus, yes or no? You will notice I have modified the phrasing slightly to make it clear I don't care what you personally think about Jesus. Perhaps you have let him in to your heart. Perhaps you haven't. What I want to know is whether you think one can make a logical deduction about whether all three of these religions can all be right about this important question. So, do you think they can all be right, or do you think they can't?
Last edited:
Justinian2
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,804
If we go to a movie, do we need a science to tell us that we should like it?
Most things we make up our own mind for.
What I was asking is what credentials do any of you have for telling another what theraphy is best for them?
Were you great students?
Were you great parents?
Are you an award winning teacher or psychiatrist?
What are your credentials?
Why do some of you think your mere opinion should influence someone as to how he should think? What are your qualifications. I know medical doctors from great universities that aren't so arrogant.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Stop being so arrogant and answer these questions.
What credentials do you have?
Where is the scientific evidence for this?
"Leukaemia is evidently psychosomatic in origin and at least eight cases of leukaemia had been treated successfully by Dianetics after medicine had traditionally given up. The source of leukaemia has been reported to be an engram containing the phrase 'It turns my blood to water.'" - L. Ron Hubbard, "Journal of Scientology," Issue 15-G, 1953
Rrose Selavy
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 3,395
What were Hubbard's qualifications?
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
http://documents.newyorker.com/2011/02/hubbard/
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/08/133561256/the-church-of-scientology-fact-checked
From http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/tsos/sos-20.html. Something else for Justinian to ignore.
''In his biographies Hubbard conveniently omitted or altered his educational qualifications. In his Brief Biography, he said he had graduated from Columbian University and in Who's Who in the Southwest (they claim he supplied the data) he said he graduated in Civil Engineering from George Washington University. (He has sometimes used a C.E. after his name.) Hubbard has even dedicated one of his books to his "instructors in atomic and molecular phenomenon, mathematics and the humanities at George Washington University and at Princeton," and in his Brief Biography he said he "excelled in but thoroughly detested his subjects."
Actually his grades were appallingly low.{ Although he did do well in his engineering and English courses, the man who frequently calls himself a nuclear physicist got a D in one physics course, an E in another, and in the atomic and molecular physics courses that he most often emphasizes (to the degree of thanking his instructors for it), he received an F. With those grades, along with similar ones in mathematics, it is not surprising that Hubbard was placed on probation after his first year in college and didn't return for his second -- and of course never received the degrees that he claims he has.
As for the Princeton School of Government that he says he attended, it was the Princeton School of Military Government, and he went there only three months in what was possibly a war service course.
Hubbard also claims to have a Ph.D. from Sequoia University. Sequoia was originally called the College of Drugless Healing, and might have been called the College of Instant Learning, since it has been traced by the United States government to a residential dwelling in Los Angeles which operated through a post office box and delivered mail order doctorates without the formality of exams, or for that matter, of classroom attendance.
In fact, Hubbard didn't even have to pay for that degree -- it was an Honorary Degree for his work in Dianetics. A Harvard student discovered that Hubbard was also on the staff of the school; might Sequoia be another name for one of Hubbard's own establishments? (Hubbard's establishments have variously been called Hubbard College, Hubbard International School for Children, The Apostolic Church of Theological Scientologists, The Academy of Religious Arts and Sciences, Church of American Science, Church of the New Faith, Scientology Consultants for Industrial Efficiency, National Academy for American Psychology.) ''
So how was Hubbard qualified to be a therapist, Justinian? Or fredcarr? He seems have given up trying to convince us that $cientology is not bunk.
Last edited:
Please answer my question Justinian. All it requires is one sentence. Either "yes, I believe all three of the religions mentioned may be simultaneously correct about the divinity of Jesus", or "No, I do not believe all three of the religions mentioned may be simultaneously correct about the divinity of Jesus".
As I said, the purpose of the question is to be able to move on to whether it is possible to make a broad generalization about whether most religions and their prophets can possibly be true. But that is to assume an answer that you have yet to give. Please answer.
As I said, the purpose of the question is to be able to move on to whether it is possible to make a broad generalization about whether most religions and their prophets can possibly be true. But that is to assume an answer that you have yet to give. Please answer.
Chris L
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 2, 2010
- Messages
- 1,344
Reality doesn't care what you like or don't like. You may believe that auditing will cure your leukemia, but the disease will not care. If you have mental issues that are caused by chemical imbalances in your brain, "rundowns" will not change your condition. Believing does not make it so.
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
Some things, sure. But things which are claimed to be scientific? That's when you should use science. Isn't your religion supposedly founded on science? That's where the name comes from, no? L. Ron Hubbard certainly unequivocally claimed that the whole thing was based on science.
So the question you should ask yourself is why you're so afraid of having the claims tested scientifically. If they're true then you have nothing whatsoever to fear. If the claims are true, then you should welcome them being tested scientifically. Yet you become incredibly defensive at the merest suggestion of scientifically testing what is claimed to be scientific. Maybe you should ask yourself why that is.